The first Hangover is one of my favourite comedies ever. I loved its characters, its hilarious story and the movie had a couple of twists and turns, and some of the scenes just made me laugh out loud at times. I also enjoyed the second Hangover in the trilogy, even though it wasn't as good or funny as the first. So I was looking forward to The Hangover Part III, even though I knew it wouldn't top the original. But now that i've mentioned that, The Hangover Part III doesn't top the original, but I still thought the films lead actors, somewhat decent story and a few laughable moments made it worth the trip in the end.

The story here is that Alan (Zach Galifianakis) is off his medication and hasn't taken it in six months. This makes him become more irresponsible and out of control as ever, like for example: he buys a giraffe and manages to shut down a road because of the giraffe incident. His family and the rest of the gang Phil, (Bradley Cooper) Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) agree that Alan should be taken to a rehab facility in Arizona. Alan will only agree to this if the rest of the wolfpack drive him there. On their way there they are hit by a truck and kidnapped by a gang owned by Marshall (John Goodman) who tells them that Chow (Ken Jeong) who has stole Marshall's gold has escaped from prison and orders them to track him down and get his gold back. He kidnaps Doug in the process and threatens to shoot him if they don't find Chow.

One thing I find quite odd about The Hangover Part III is despite the title, there isn't actually a hangover in the film. well, that isn't until a few seconds after the credits roll. There is an extra scene, but i'll talk about that later. Nobody even gets drunk in the movie, there is only one scene I remember one of the characters drinking and that's Alan at the start while he's driving home with his giraffe. But I actually kind of like the fact that they didn't take the same route as the first two movies, was there really any way they could have done all that again without making it too samey and repetitive? So yeah, the movie leaves its roots from the first two and manages to be a very different one. Not to worry though, as I think fans of the first two will still enjoy this one, Alan is still same old Alan, Chow is still his usual crazy and sometimes funny self, even though some might find him a bit annoying. The situations they find themselves in are still bizarre and at times really funny. It does have a a bit of a dark tone to it and at times it felt more like an action movie than a comedy.

While there are still some funny moments, there were times I couldn't help but feel I was watching something like an action thriller. It shows someone getting shot, there are a few violent scenes and one of the characters is threatened to get killed if the main characters don't do their job. And while there are still some laughs to be had, I did find this to probably be the least funniest out of the trilogy but I still enjoyed it nonetheless. What I did enjoy about the movie was its lead characters, Alan is still funny and most of the laughs come from him as usual. Stu and Phil are still enjoyable to watch and their actors do a good job in their roles. It's still quite funny to see Stu having another one of his freaking out moments. Chow is a character you either like or hate. He is still same old Chow from the previous two and he has his funny moments, but if you found him annoying in the first two, you might still in this. I thought he was good in his role and made me laugh a few times.

Bradley Cooper is also good in his role as Phil but I couldn't help but feel he was more of a background character at times. It seemed like only Alan and Chow had more screen time than Phil and Stu. Doug is also back, but again has the smallest screen time when compared to the other leads. John Goodman is good in his role as Marshall, he at times makes a slightly intimidating villain and at times has his funny lines. Some recurring characters return including Alan's mum and dad and Stu's wife who married in part II, but all have very minor roles. Heather Graham's character also returns in a minor role, and so does her son who is no longer a baby and is four years older. There is a funny scene with him and Alan who tells him that his name was once Carlos.

Verdict

Although I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed The Hangover Part III, I also can't help but feel that it might have been a bit necessary. cause at the same time it didn't really feel like a triumphant return for the wolfpack. I thought it also felt very different from the first two, being one of the reasons that they're not actually hungover. The film also feels a bit lazy at times, and the movie is pretty much a cash grab, but still enjoyable and entertaining. It does however end on a high note for the wolfpack, I thought it was a good ending for them. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed The Hangover Part III, I actually wasn't expecting to like it that much. It definitely doesn't top the original which is still the best in the trilogy, it may also be a bit better than The Hangover Part II. It may only appeal to fans of the trilogy, newcomers might not really enjoy it. Remember to stick around for a few seconds after the credits roll, there is one hilarious extra scene that brings back the roots of the first Hangover.

+ Still some laughs to be had -Feels lazy and unnecassary

+ The leads are very good in their roles - Isn't as funny as it could be